From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr 26 2000 - 08:14:14 MDT
In a message dated 4/26/2000 7:07:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charlie@antipope.org writes:
>
> Then there ain't no white Australians ...
>
No, nor are there really many white (or black or Asian) 'Americans'. You
could be white and *part* native American, if one of your distant ancestors
was Indian.
> The Unionists are Irish by your definition ... and non-native, by your
> previous definition. Which do you want to use?
Again, it's clearly a question of native by birth (in this case you can be a
Native New Yorker and be Jamaican) or by heritage. I understand the
difference, why would you pretend not to?
Perhaps the word indigenous would make it clear to you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:14 MST